Clinton Climate Initiative

And here I thought it was only Al Gore fighting the good fight.

The Clinton Foundation has taken on a new project, the Clinton Climate Initiative--a business-oriented approach to helping cities reduce their emissions. This includes retrofitting private and public buildings with energy efficient technologies, developing waste management systems that include recycling, composting, and methane capture, as well as implementing optimal transportation systems and street/traffic lights.

Additionally, CCI works to pool purchasing power:

CCI is working to leverage the buying potential of cities throughout the world to achieve favorable pricing on – and thus faster adoption of – energy-efficient and clean energy products and technologies. CCI has negotiated discounted pricing agreements with more than 25 manufacturers of energy-efficient products, including lighting, chillers, solar control window films, and “cool” roofing that will help to lower the costs of building retrofits. CCI has also negotiated discounts on clean technology vehicles, energy efficient street and traffic lights, and other products that will be deployed in cities through CCI programs.

In my last post, I embedded an interview with BC on his project, but I'll embed it here again. My favorite part is when Bill explains:

Much of what we need to do is economical now if we can get organized and get after it. For example, you tell me which is more valuable—forget about climate change: a statement that says “We are going to reduce the AIDS death rate by 15% in the next 10 years.” A statement. Then you have all these meetings and figure out how you are going to do that. Or the establishment of a global fund on HIV and malaria which actually provides funding to keep people alive and reduce the death rate. So it’s fine to have these goals, but I’d like to see the international community focus on mechanisms. For example, if you look at what we did today arguably the most important thing was to get the 5 billion dollars in commitments from the financial institutions, which more than double the size of the market, and then get the commitment from the energy savers to offer performance guarantees, which then made it possible to finance repayment of the bank loans through energy savings lower utility bills every month. And doing that is really really important, and maybe a lot more important than just stating “we’re gunna have a goal here.” You gotta figure out how to get this stuff done. I’d like to get us back in the solutions business.

looking back on Clinton's 1993 energy tax

Andrew Revkin over at the DOT EARTH blog on the NY Times posted a nice throw back to the Clinton years and his attempt at an energy tax. He even included this nifty interview with Bill.



Revkin talks about the differences between the two initiatives:

The 1993 tax was pursued mainly as a source of revenue to cut the deficit, not a means of reducing American dependence on foreign oil and cutting risks of dangerous climate change. But there is one similarity. Democrats, particularly from coal states, helped set the stage for the failure of the 1993 tax, according to various experts, and according to Mr. Clinton. He touched on this in the interview. Democrats from states that produce or depend on fossil fuels have been slow to buy into the climate bill. Check out the article.